No it actually doesn't. It doesn't take into account the effect of CO2 on human health. We are already seeing Metabolic Syndrome arising from our bodies trying to compensate for the atmospheric levels we have now.

We hit stuffy room at 600 ppm and will have no fresh air to go to. Our bodies won't be able to accommodate that on a continuous basis. We need to return to fresh air for our bodies to relieve the blood acidosis that occurs. Unfortunately our bodies are having difficulty with that at current atmospheric levels.

"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry

The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.

OSHA allows 5000 ppm concentrations of CO2 in the work place. There are essentially zero effects of the human body below 1000 ppm. So if you think you are going to suffocate any time soon due to CO2 exposure, you need to examine the science more thoroughly.

n the far north, the land is rippling, trembling, subsiding, and blowing up as greenhouse gasses are released from thawing frozen soil. Meanwhile, old diseases are being released from thawing carcasses and presenting a health hazard to locals. Strange processes that are likely to accelerate soon as global warming approaches 1.5 degrees Celsius and between 21 and 25.5 percent of all the vast region of Northern Permafrost thaws out...

... The study analyzed past emissions of greenhouse gases and the burning of fossil fuels to show that even if humans suddenly stopped burning fossil fuels now, Earth will continue to heat up about two more degrees by 2100. It also concluded that if emissions continue for 15 more years, which is more likely than a sudden stop, Earth's global temperature could rise as much as 3 degrees.

"Even if we would stop burning fossil fuels today, then the Earth would continue to warm slowly," ... "It is this committed warming that we estimate."

Cases a (black) and b (red) are the equilibria with and without aerosol cooling, whereas case c (purple) includes the effect of removing short-lived climate forcers. Cases d (blue) and e (orange) are scaled with the transient climate response representative of warming within this century. Case d is otherwise equivalent to case c. In case e, it is assumed that carbon uptake on the centennial timescale cancels the remnant warming due to imbalance with past forcing. Displayed numbers are the median and 5th–95th percentiles of the respective distribution. Also shown in grey is the instrumental temperature record12 for 1850–2016, and black horizontal lines indicate the reference periods used to estimate TCR and ECS (Fig. 1). The dashed horizontal lines indicate 1.5 and 2.0 K. All temperatures are relative to the 1850–1899 mean, which is here taken to be the pre-industrial reference temperature (Methods).

...If we surpass that mark, it has been estimated by scientists that life on our planet will change as we know it. Rising seas, mass extinctions, super droughts, increased wildfires, intense hurricanes, decreased crops and fresh water and the melting of the Arctic are expected.

The impact on human health would be profound. Rising temperatures and shifts in weather would lead to reduced air quality, food and water contamination, more infections carried by mosquitoes and ticks and stress on mental health, according to a recent report from the Medical Society Consortium on Climate and Health.

"This interesting paper confirms the conclusion about where the world is headed unless there is a major increase in the ambition of climate and energy policies," Hare said.

Warming of the planet by 2 degrees Celsius is often seen as a "tipping point" that people should try to avoid by limiting greenhouse gas emissions.But the Earth is very likely to exceed that change, according to new University of Washington research.

A study using statistical tools shows only a 5 percent chance that Earth will warm 2 degrees or less by the end of this century. It shows a mere 1 percent chance that warming could be at or below 1.5 degrees, the target set by the 2016 Paris Agreement.

"Our analysis shows that the goal of 2 degrees is very much a best-case scenario," said lead author Adrian Raftery, a UW professor of statistics and sociology. "It is achievable, but only with major, sustained effort on all fronts over the next 80 years."

"Our analysis is compatible with previous estimates, but it finds that the most optimistic projections are unlikely to happen," ... "We're closer to the margin than we think."

The new, statistically-based projections, published July 31 in Nature Climate Change, show a 90 percent chance that temperatures will increase this century by 2.0 to 4.9 C.

a, CO2 emissions by year. b, Cumulative CO2 emissions by year. c, Logarithm of the components of the Kaya identity by year, normalized to zero in 1960: population, GDP per capita, carbon intensity. d, Histogram of the predictive distribution of the global mean temperature increase relative to 1861–1880 (°C). In a and b, the solid red line is the predictive median, the heavily shaded region is the likely range (90% interval), the lightly shaded region is the 95% interval, and the IPCC RCP scenarios are the dashed lines.

Russian scientists deny climate model of IPCCMassive emissions of methane in the Arctic become a significant source of greenhouse gases, a study reveals

The rate of vertical degradation of subsea permafrost in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS) is 18 cm a year over the past 30 years, which is greater than previously thought. Scientists from Tomsk Polytechnic University received this data after the comprehensive study of subsea permafrost not only in the Russian Arctic but also in the Arctic as a whole.

TPU scientists and co-authors from Russia and Sweden have recently published findings of the study in Nature Communications.

Basing on the repeated drilling of four wells performed by the Institute of Permafrost Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences in 1982-1983, scientists have proved that the rates of vertical degradation of subsea permafrost amount to18 cm a year over the last 30 years (the average is 14 cm a year) which is greater than it was assumed before.

'New data obtained by complex biochemical, geophysical and geological studies conducted in 2011-2016 resulted in the conclusion that in some areas of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf the roof of the subsea permafrost had already reached the depth of hydrates' stability the destruction of which may cause massive releases of bubble methane.

According to our findings published earlier in Nature Geoscience, Science and Philosophical Transactions, Royal Society, the size of CH4 bubble flaw from the bottom sediments into the ESAS water can vary from milligrams to tens or hundreds of grams per square meter a day depending on the state of subsea permafrost, which leads to the concentration increase of atmospheric CH4 in the surface layer to values 2-4 times exceeding background concentrations measured in our planet,' says the first author of the paper Professor Natalia Shakhova, the TPU Department of Geology and Minerals Prospecting.

She notes that these findings were confirmed during the expedition to the East Siberian Arctic Self in 2016. The expedition was organized and conducted jointly with the scientists from the Pacific Oceanological Institute FEB RAS, with the participation of the Institute of Oceanology RAS and the Institute of Atmospheric Physics RAS. More data will be published in 2018.

Current rates and mechanisms of subsea permafrost degradation in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf

It was shown that slight changes in seafloor erosion and sedimentation patterns that change the thermal and pressure regime below the seafloor could be viable mechanisms for unroofing underlying gas reservoirs, which can release CH4 in large quantities66. Once initiated, erosion could propagate further downward and migrate laterally to adjacent areas, driven by venting gas. Erosion of a few tens of seafloor metres could unroof over-pressured shallow gas reservoirs and buoyant hydrate-laden sediment accumulations beneath the seafloor, triggering rapid gas release66,67.

The Great California Drought the Killer Drought and its nemesis The Great Brazilian Drought ran away to garner other henchmen/women of destruction to lays us asunder. Yikes! But they slunk home humiliated, their wedges firmly ensconced within their hocky-stick tails.

... The study analyzed past emissions of greenhouse gases and the burning of fossil fuels to show that even if humans suddenly stopped burning fossil fuels now, Earth will continue to heat up about two more degrees by 2100. It also concluded that if emissions continue for 15 more years, which is more likely than a sudden stop, Earth's global temperature could rise as much as 3 degrees.

"Even if we would stop burning fossil fuels today, then the Earth would continue to warm slowly," ... "It is this committed warming that we estimate."

Cases a (black) and b (red) are the equilibria with and without aerosol cooling, whereas case c (purple) includes the effect of removing short-lived climate forcers. Cases d (blue) and e (orange) are scaled with the transient climate response representative of warming within this century. Case d is otherwise equivalent to case c. In case e, it is assumed that carbon uptake on the centennial timescale cancels the remnant warming due to imbalance with past forcing. Displayed numbers are the median and 5th–95th percentiles of the respective distribution. Also shown in grey is the instrumental temperature record12 for 1850–2016, and black horizontal lines indicate the reference periods used to estimate TCR and ECS (Fig. 1). The dashed horizontal lines indicate 1.5 and 2.0 K. All temperatures are relative to the 1850–1899 mean, which is here taken to be the pre-industrial reference temperature (Methods).

...If we surpass that mark, it has been estimated by scientists that life on our planet will change as we know it. Rising seas, mass extinctions, super droughts, increased wildfires, intense hurricanes, decreased crops and fresh water and the melting of the Arctic are expected.

The impact on human health would be profound. Rising temperatures and shifts in weather would lead to reduced air quality, food and water contamination, more infections carried by mosquitoes and ticks and stress on mental health, according to a recent report from the Medical Society Consortium on Climate and Health.

"This interesting paper confirms the conclusion about where the world is headed unless there is a major increase in the ambition of climate and energy policies," Hare said.

Warming of the planet by 2 degrees Celsius is often seen as a "tipping point" that people should try to avoid by limiting greenhouse gas emissions.But the Earth is very likely to exceed that change, according to new University of Washington research.

A study using statistical tools shows only a 5 percent chance that Earth will warm 2 degrees or less by the end of this century. It shows a mere 1 percent chance that warming could be at or below 1.5 degrees, the target set by the 2016 Paris Agreement.

"Our analysis shows that the goal of 2 degrees is very much a best-case scenario," said lead author Adrian Raftery, a UW professor of statistics and sociology. "It is achievable, but only with major, sustained effort on all fronts over the next 80 years."

"Our analysis is compatible with previous estimates, but it finds that the most optimistic projections are unlikely to happen," ... "We're closer to the margin than we think."

The new, statistically-based projections, published July 31 in Nature Climate Change, show a 90 percent chance that temperatures will increase this century by 2.0 to 4.9 C.

a, CO2 emissions by year. b, Cumulative CO2 emissions by year. c, Logarithm of the components of the Kaya identity by year, normalized to zero in 1960: population, GDP per capita, carbon intensity. d, Histogram of the predictive distribution of the global mean temperature increase relative to 1861–1880 (°C). In a and b, the solid red line is the predictive median, the heavily shaded region is the likely range (90% interval), the lightly shaded region is the 95% interval, and the IPCC RCP scenarios are the dashed lines.

James Hansen and a few other scientists spoke out against the phony Paris Accords and the fraudulent claim that they would keep global warming below 2°C, but most scientist scientists were silent. Shamefully silent.

Hopefully more scientists will now come forward and speak the truth about this matter We need to ditch the phony Paris Accords and start over with a treaty that actually reduces CO2 emissions.

My suspicion is that within 50 years or so when some remaining scrapes of humanity are dwelling on Antarctic or Tibet and some others run nocturnal life style and hide in mineshafts during daylight there will be still a blame game between supporters and deniers of AGW.

EnergyUnlimited wrote:Hey,If President Obama didn't get there no one will...

My suspicion is that within 50 years or so when some remaining scrapes of humanity are dwelling on Antarctic or Tibet and some others run nocturnal life style and hide in mineshafts during daylight there will be still a blame game between supporters and deniers of AGW.

EnergyUnlimited wrote:Hey,If President Obama didn't get there no one will...

My suspicion is that within 50 years or so when some remaining scrapes of humanity are dwelling on Antarctic or Tibet and some others run nocturnal life style and hide in mineshafts during daylight there will be still a blame game between supporters and deniers of AGW.

Are the deniers going to say its NOT happening?

They will accept "GW" and keep arguing with "A".So the story will be "It is not our nor our parents fault".Mother Nature did it and she is a bitch

I mean seriously, Alaska covers more area than a random dozen other states and ranges in climate from maritime in the south, like we get in Oregon State, all the way to the Arctic Coast where everything as far as the eye can see is treeless tundra.

I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

I'm not sure I get your point. How does the fact that Alaska has many kinds of ecosystems within its borders make the fact that permafrost melting is uneventful?

The point is a headline without context is a pretty meaningless thing to post. Most of us do not subscribe to the NYT for various reasons so why bother just posting a headline from that source? If you want to convey information you have to post information, not random headlines.

I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.